Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
NEW YORK INDIANS v. UNITED STATES, 1898 — 170 U.S. 614 · caselaw · US
Tax
NEW YORK INDIANS v. UNITED STATES
170 U.S. 61442 L. Ed. 1165·Supreme Court of the United States·1898
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
NEW YORK INDIANS v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.
Announced May 23, 1898.
The judgment and mandate in this case, 170 U. S. 1, are amended.
In this case it is ordered that the judgment and mandate be aménded so as ‘to read as follows':
“ The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to enter a new judgment for the net amount actually received by the Government for the Kansas lands, without interest, less any increase in value attributable to the fact that certain of these lands were donated for public purposes, as well'as the net amount which the court below may find could have been obtained for the lands otherwise disposed of if they had all been sold as public lands, less the amount of lands upon the basis of which settlement was made with the Tonawandas, and less the 10,240 acres allotted to the thirty-two New York Indians, as set forth in finding twelve, together with such other deductions as may seem to the court below to be just, and for such other proceedings as may be necessary and in conformity with this opinion.”